Essentially, (B) says, that it's necessary that there was a chance of a change in oil reserves. Which makes sense because if there wasn't a chance, then the argument falls apart.

I'd suggest removing the timing aspect when you recognize conditional relationships in the stimulus. Map out the relationship and then map each answer choice. As you get more and more aware and comfortable with writing this down, you'll begin to be able to mentally map it out.

Ultimately, if you're not currently able to mentally do this, you likely need more practice at developing a core foundation. To develop this skill into a habit, remove the timing and work on one thing at a time. Your speed will improve as your skillset improves. Don't rush it! Quality over quantity.

Generally, I try to only diagram on paper when I'm reviewing a question that I flagged. It's much more efficient during timed attempts to diagram mentally rather than diagram on paper. That being said, it can be beneficial to diagram mentally and during blind review diagram on paper.

The stimulus tells us information about the necessary domain: eligible ↔ exemplary and one sufficiency to receiving the award: this year + save life + exceeds reasonable expectations.

What we aren't told is information regarding what's sufficient to "should not receive."

So, even if you take the contrapositive using De Morgan's law, it only eliminates that sufficient route from receiving the award. Therefore, yes, you can properly infer "should not receive" the award by one route, but that isn't sufficient to eliminate all possibilities to receiving the award.

Answer choice (A) limits the scope to plants and animals, whereas the stimulus says "species of living organisms." So, (A) eliminates things like fungus which are living organisms.

Answer choice (A), in an if-then format, states: If a commodity that is not essential to human health is not provided by the government, then a private company should not be allowed to supply that commodity.

The stimulus makes no mention of whether a government is or is not supplying water. Meaning, they might be or they might not be with equal plausibility. Because of this ambiguity it doesn't "most" justify in comparison to the correct answer choice.

It's not making an assumption per se, as much as it's about addressing why an assumption made in the passage may or may not benefit the argument. In this case, the passage makes the assumption that the other cities are similar enough to the city in question to provide an appropriate comparison.

"...because those travelers purchase 80 percent of all airline tickets."

The argument is making the claim that airlines should focus on leisure travelers' comfort, not because airlines value their comfort, but because leisure travelers' purchase a larger proportion than other airline travelers. So, leisure travelers purchase 80 out of the 100 tickets available each flight.

(C) Sleeping in comfort during long flights is not the primary concern of leisure travelers.

- If this is true how does this weaken the reasoning that leisure travelers should be the focus because they purchase a greater proportion of tickets?

(D) A far greater proportion of an airline's revenues is derived from business travelers than from leisure travelers.

- Even if leisure travelers purchase a greater proportion, the business travelers' contribute more to the bottom-line than all of the leisure travelers. So, business travelers pay a total of $10,000 for 20 seats, whereas leisure travelers pay a total of $800 for 80 seats.

I got to the right answer with a different answer choice analysis, so I thought I'd share.

The passage translation: a survey taken from two different sources over the past decade has confirmed a two to one difference between moving out and moving in. The upcoming census, which counts everyone living in the city, will reflect a population decline consistent with the two sources' data over the past decade.

Assumptions to avoid (ID-ing these helps me stay objective): the census and the two sources are the same.

(A) Within the past decade many people both moved into the city and also moved out of it.

- Restatement of information already shared in the passage.

(B) Over the past century any census of Weston showing a population loss was followed ten years later by a census showing a population gain.

- Provides irrelevant information about a trend in Weston censuses.

(C) Many people moving into Weston failed to notify either the post office or the driver's license bureau that they had moved to the city.

- Assumption bait. It doesn't matter whether the people have or have not registered with the two sources because the census is an entirely different information gathering process.

(D) Most adults moving out of Weston were parents who had children living with them, whereas most adults remaining in or moving into the city were older people who lived alone.

- Reasonable assumptions, the parents moved out in pairs and the adults moving in are solo. Therefore giving us a reasonable two to one confirmation that the census will be able to identify.

(E) Most people moving out of Weston were young adults who were hoping to begin a career elsewhere, whereas most adults remaining in or moving into the city had long-standing jobs in the city.

- Provides irrelevant information about a singular demographic that the census will cover.

Answer choice (D) is crossed out because with EXCEPT questions the approach strategy is to circle or chose four answers that, in this case, explain the findings of the study, and mark out one answer choice that does not explain the findings of the study. By doing this, you help eliminate confusion when reading through and forgetting you're looking for an EXCEPT answer choice. So, crossing out (D) is indicating the correct answer choice and the other four answer choices are circled which indicate incorrect answer choices.

It may seem confusing now, but when you make the mistake of forgetting it's an EXCEPT question you realize the benefit in the strategy.

This question doesn't have contradictions in the answer choice.

(A) Air-conditioning is not the only significant drain on the electrical system in the area. - This could or could not be true within the region being discussed. It doesn't offer a contradiction to any part of the stimulus.

Contradiction, if in the stimulus: air-conditioning is the only drain on the electrical system in the region.

(B) Most air-conditioning in the region is used to cool businesses and factories. - correct answer and not contradictory.

Contradiction, if in the stimulus: The only use of air conditioning in the region is in residential homes.

(C) Most air-conditioning systems could be made more energy efficient by implementing simple design modifications. - This could or could not be true about air conditioners, but it doesn't contradict that air conditioner use has overloaded the region's electrical power grid.

Contradiction, if in the stimulus: All air-conditioning systems in use in the region have reached their maximum potential efficiency that can ever be achieved.

(D) Residents of the region are not likely to reduce their air conditioner use voluntarily during. - This could or could not be true about the residents of the region. But it doesn't contradict that even if the residents do heed the voluntary cutback the blackouts will still occur unless the heat wave abates.

Contradiction, if in the stimulus: The residents of the region are all deferent to voluntary requests, especially about air conditioner use during heat waves.

(E) The heat wave is expected to abate in the near future. - This could or could not be true. If the heat wave abates in the near future then the stimulus tells us that the blackout will likely not continue.

Contradiction, if in the stimulus: The region is not experiencing a heat wave, nor will the region experience a heat wave ever in the future.

Make mental notes as well as written notes. Read the sentence once, make a mental note about the information in it. The more you does this, the less you'll need to write down to keep the information organized.

It's difficult understand without (&) or (or), so I would just ensure that on paper you write out:

(TS & EB) → SG → (IndepOwned)

Contrapositive:

(IndepOwned) → SG → (TS or EB)

My general rule of thumb has been that any MBT questions in the first ten likely won't be complex enough to need written notations, so I take a few more moments to organize the stimulus in my head before moving to the answer choices. MBT questions beyond the first ten, I write out the notations during the first pass, eliminate any answers that are obviously wrong and then either flag it and comeback to my notes or write out the answer choices still remaining.

I think a secondary approach that may be useful is to use these video lessons as a means of developing other skills, such as predicting the answer.

So, instead of having a quick view option, use these limited questions to read the stimulus, make one or two predictions of the answer choice and then play the video and see how close your prediction came to the correct answer.

The quick view is a great function, but I think these limited questions within the core curriculum should be used differently than a drill where you're actively placing yourself in a simulated environment to see how your skills are developing.

These questions are a time to slow way down, analyze the stimulus more than you have time to do on the test, and develop efficiencies that will undoubtedly transfer to test day.

Main Conclusion

(A) The claim that advertising persuades people that they need things that they merely want rests on a fuzzy distinction.

- In the stimulus, the main conclusion is noted using referential phrasing, "...this accusation..."

Context Restated

(B) Many critics of consumerism insist that advertising attempts to blur people's ability to distinguish between wants and needs.

- Almost a verbatim of the first sentence, which is context.

Unsupported Claim

(C)There is nothing wrong with advertising that tries to persuade people that they need certain consumer goods.

- The stimulus doesn't provide any insight into what is right or wrong.

Unsupported Claim

(D) Many critics of consumerism fail to realize that certain things are essential to human happiness.

- The stimulus doesn't provide any insight into the failures or successes of many critics of consumerism.

Unsupported Claim

(E) Critics of consumerism often use fuzzy distinctions to support their claims.

- The stimulus doesn't provide any insight into the frequency of use.

The questions stem doesn't define the answer choice needs to be an exact representation: "...most closely conforms..." So, "fail to consider" and "tend to ignore" are reasonably close representations of each other contextually.

That being said, the crux of the correct answer choice is in the phrase, "ignore possible objectionable..." The stimulus, in the last sentence, gives us the qualifiers of "...may..." and "...could..." Defining that there is not a guarantee that this happens.

So, (A) allows for "may" and "could; whereas, (B), provides a principle that claims a guarantee. "A negative consequence..."

Answer choice (E) establishes that a person should not be in control of the military if they cannot command a specific job: "...who cannot command..."

The stimulus, however, doesn't define that the person leading the military needs to be able to command a specific job. It simply, and coyly, states that if a person has a condition that bars them from commanding specific jobs, they cannot be in control of the military: "...that a person would be barred from..."

Answer choice (A) specifically defines that it is the barring of an individual that disqualifies them from leading the military: "no one who would be barred..."

One thing to note, that may help with any clarification regarding why the answer choice including specific words stated in the stimulus is correct, the question stem qualifies what the answer choice needs to do. That being, "...most accurately expresses..."

Answer choice (A) is attractive for many reasonings, but it's unattractive in that it is broad: "...improving other people's lives."

Whereas, answer choice (D) supplies specificity.

(B) forces the assumption that the amount of timber area lost between '77 & '87 is significant, but the answer choice neglects to identify the quantity. It could be 1 acre or 100,000 acres. Therefore, it lacks the necessary information to accurately address the 12,000 jobs lost in logging and wood processing. If it was only 1 acre, it's rather unlikely that production could have increased by 10%...you have to supply another assumption if this is the case which is another LSAT trick. Stick with only the information you're supplied.

To your second question: Yes-ish.

The conclusion is, if a nuclear reactor site is built within the geologically quiet region, the nuclear reactor site is being built there because an earthquake has happened within recent memory. Why does the occurrence of the earthquake matter? Because an earthquake that has happened within recent memory will not produce another earthquake for almost 100,000 years. What does the knowledge of another earthquake not happening for another 100k years do for the argument? It tells us that if a nuclear reactor site is built within a geologically quiet region it has the least likelihood of being impacted by another earthquake. What impact does this have? Well, we're not really sure. This is where the conclusion you make in your question, "...are the safest?" branches from the information that we are provided in the stimulus.

The context of the stimulus informs us that sometimes nuclear reactor sites are built in areas that are considered "geologically quiet."

Why only sometimes?

Because for the area to be defined as a geologically quiet region, it must meet two requirements:

1) not near a plate boundary

2) only contain minor faults

Why do each of these requirements matter?

1) we don't know. -Yes, we can speculate because plate boundaries sound like areas where major earthquakes happen, but that's outside knowledge and it's not relevant to the argument.-

2) because a minor fault has a predictable earthquake occurrence 1 every 100,000 years.

Why does #2 matter?

If we have a record of when the last earthquake happened then we know, mostly, when the next earthquake can occur.

So, what is necessary for us to assume?

If a nuclear reactor site is constructed in a geologically quiet region, then the site is near a minor fault ← Answer Choice C; and not near a plate boundary.

If it's not near a minor fault, then it can't be in a geologically quiet region. Which also means it's no longer the least likely to be struck by an earthquake.

Why isn't Answer Choice E correct?

Because if an earthquake occurs at a minor fault in more than 100,000 years, then those are just bonus years without an earthquake. Also, by using "at least every 100,000 years" this answer choice makes a statement that it could occur in less than 100,000 years. Because if it occurs every 50 years, then it's satisfying the statement "at least every." Which would unravel the argument.

The stimulus introduces the context (anthropologist claim): if humans didn't adapt to dealing with different environments, then they wouldn't have survived prehistoric times.

Premise: However, (indicator that the author is going to produce an argument), in contrast to the context, there's a species related to humans that did adapt, but still went extinct.

Conclusion: adaptation to dealing with different environments isn't sufficient to producing non-extinction.

Explanation = Conclusion:

Because something related to humans had a specific ability that the anthropologist claim is necessary for human survival didn't survive, it's not necessary for humans.

Flaw:

Just because a different species, that's related to humans, had the ability to adapt and still went extinct, doesn't conclude that's why humans didn't need that ability to not go extinct.

Answer Choice (A) states that the ability to adapt to varying environments for one species (a conditions's being required for...in one case) is sufficient to producing the same result in humans (occur in a similar -read as related-).

I think that something that may help in determining "what went wrong" could be to journal in reflection about the two days before (or longer) and the day of the test. Perhaps looking at a personal recount of how you were feeling, what you did, and other events can help identify specifics about any differences from when you PT to the actual test. Were you more nervous, not nervous? How did you sleep? Any thing you did similarly or different?

The stimulus is making the claim that the statement that auto industry's revenues are decreasing isn't truthful. To back the claim that the statement isn't truthful, the stimulus provides us with statistics about the three components of the auto industry as a whole: manufacturers, suppliers, and services. The statistics provided are each of components share of the industry as a whole. Manufactures: declined to 50%, Suppliers increased 20%, and Services, increased 30%. What this information tells us is that there are only three components to the auto-industry as a whole. We know this because their shares of the auto-industry add up to 100%. If they added up to anything less, then we would be missing information regarding a component that makes up the auto-industry.

The Question Stem asks us which answer choice provides the reason why we can't use the provided information to support the initial claim.

Claim: The statement that the auto-industry revenue is in decline is not truthful.

Evidence: Currently, Manufacturers make up 50% of the auto-industry; Suppliers make up 20% of the auto-industry, and Services make up 30%

Answer Choice (D) attempts to tell us that the reason we can't use the evidence provided to support the claim is because Services (identified as dealers in the answer choice) are necessary for the revenues of the Manufacturers and Suppliers (identified as parts in the answer choice). - this provides us with information about how two out of the three auto-industry components earn revenue, but doesn't give us any information regarding why the breakdown of shares of each component can't be used to support the claim.

Answer Choice (B) indicates that regardless of the changes in revenue experienced in the auto-industry as a whole, the shares that each component makes up must equal to 100% of the auto-industry. - In essence, thanks for the breakdown of shares, but it tells us nothing about whether the revenue of the industry as a whole are in decline, stagnant, or increasing. We would need statistics on revenue change and a time period to make a determination. Per example, if auto-industry revenue as a whole is declining over a three year period we would need statistics showing that over the course of three years the revenue has been declining.

The stimulus tells us why Salmonella is bad and likely needs a replacement test: it's a potentially fatal illness and the current tests are slow and don't identify all of the strains...

Note: we're told the tests are slow, but sans comparison, so unless we're given a comparison this is probably just wasted information.

...the new tests takes care of all the strains.

Conclusion: Because the new tests identifies all of the strains, the new test should replace all of the other tests.

Stem: Weaken

Pre-phrase: The new test is exorbitantly expensive, the new test takes an extremely skilled person to use of which are in very limited supply, the new test is slower than the old test, unusual strains don't impact humans, etc

Answer Choice Analysis:

(A) So, this function of the new test doesn't provide us any strengths or weaknesses. Keep in mind, too, that we aren't given any information that the old tests do or don't do this either. Essentially, this becomes a moot point.

(B) A tricky, but correct answer choice. If the new test indicates that Salmonella is present in all quantities, the food identified would be determined a risks; however, that would be an inaccuracy because the quantity is too low to pose a risk. Therefore, the new test risks providing information that isn't accurate to addressing the supplied concerns.

(C) Standard wrong a/c: context about salmonella not applicable to the new test.

(D) Standard wrong a/c: context about new test. Needs an assumption that hasn't been supplied such as, recent advances are proven or accurate.

(E) Standard wrong a/c: context about Salmonella. It doesn't address anything about the tests discussed.

Admin Note: Deleted the stimulus because it is against our Forum Rules to post the LSAT questions or Answer Choices on the forum